Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

The only thing you can control is what you do in your own games.

If you win 103 games, that's generally regarded as a damn good season.

Do you think the 1993 San Francisco Giants regarded their '93 season as an unmitigated failure? How much control did they have over Atlanta going 97-52 in the 149 games the Braves played against the rest of the NL?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

We're still focusing on team goals. This is an individual award. The Tigers made the playoffs but with a record worse than the Angels (and 5 other AL teams). Did Cabrera do something for the Tigers that Trout didn't do for the Angels? Absolutely not. Bother players were awesome. But Trout was better and that the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did has everything to do with division alignment and not the individual performances of either player.

It's an individual award. The award is "most valuable to the team he plays for." Or at least that's what a lot of people think.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

The only thing you can control is what you do in your own games.

If you win 103 games, that's generally regarded as a damn good season.

Do you think the 1993 San Francisco Giants regarded their '93 season as an unmitigated failure? How much control did they have over Atlanta going 97-52 in the 149 games the Braves played against the rest of the NL?

This

If you asked any member of that Giants team the question "Were the Philies or Giants more successful in 1993?," I would bet the vast majority would say the Phillies.

Ya, that's BS. Can you find positives in a season like that? Sure, but ultimately it's a failure. EVERY team's goal in April is to make the playoffs and by extension win the WS. Therefore, not making the playoffs is failure.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

We're still focusing on team goals. This is an individual award. The Tigers made the playoffs but with a record worse than the Angels (and 5 other AL teams). Did Cabrera do something for the Tigers that Trout didn't do for the Angels? Absolutely not. Bother players were awesome. But Trout was better and that the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did has everything to do with division alignment and not the individual performances of either player.

It's an individual award. The award is "most valuable to the team he plays for." Or at least that's what a lot of people think.

We know the Angels won more games.

We know that Trout was probably* better than Cabrera.

*I'll stop being a complete ******* about it, but I'm still certain Trout was better.

How was Cabrera more valuable? I get that they made the playoffs, but using that as the basis of your argument completely ignores everything else that happened in baseball.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

We're still focusing on team goals. This is an individual award. The Tigers made the playoffs but with a record worse than the Angels (and 5 other AL teams). Did Cabrera do something for the Tigers that Trout didn't do for the Angels? Absolutely not. Bother players were awesome. But Trout was better and that the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did has everything to do with division alignment and not the individual performances of either player.

No, I'm just jerking you around now.

Nonetheless, it's a team game played by individuals. Nobody wants the guy who says "**** you. I don't care if we missed the playoffs, I won the MVP!!!" Ask Barry Bonds about his comeback.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

The only thing you can control is what you do in your own games.

If you win 103 games, that's generally regarded as a damn good season.

Do you think the 1993 San Francisco Giants regarded their '93 season as an unmitigated failure? How much control did they have over Atlanta going 97-52 in the 149 games the Braves played against the rest of the NL?

Did they make the playoffs? Do you think they called the '93 "Hugely successful"?

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2012 4:23:00 PM (view original):Talk to us when Trout wins a Triple Crown. I'll even let you replace one of the traditional categories with SB.

Is that all that matters, though? Had he come up one homer short or dropped .001 behind Trout in BA, would you feel differently about his season? Because it was a monster season either way and he deserves to come in second for the award even if he had fallen a homer short.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

We're still focusing on team goals. This is an individual award. The Tigers made the playoffs but with a record worse than the Angels (and 5 other AL teams). Did Cabrera do something for the Tigers that Trout didn't do for the Angels? Absolutely not. Bother players were awesome. But Trout was better and that the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did has everything to do with division alignment and not the individual performances of either player.

It's an individual award. The award is "most valuable to the team he plays for." Or at least that's what a lot of people think.

We know the Angels won more games.

We know that Trout was probably* better than Cabrera.

*I'll stop being a complete ******* about it, but I'm still certain Trout was better.

How was Cabrera more valuable? I get that they made the playoffs, but using that as the basis of your argument completely ignores everything else that happened in baseball.

It's not like I'm arguing Quinton Berry is the MVP. If Cabrera isn't the best player this year (some people here have given arguments that don't involve making the playoffs), he's probably 2nd. It's up the voter from there to decide how much weight he wants to give Cabrera because he helped his team make the playoffs.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

We're still focusing on team goals. This is an individual award. The Tigers made the playoffs but with a record worse than the Angels (and 5 other AL teams). Did Cabrera do something for the Tigers that Trout didn't do for the Angels? Absolutely not. Bother players were awesome. But Trout was better and that the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did has everything to do with division alignment and not the individual performances of either player.

It's an individual award. The award is "most valuable to the team he plays for." Or at least that's what a lot of people think.

We know the Angels won more games.

We know that Trout was probably* better than Cabrera.

*I'll stop being a complete ******* about it, but I'm still certain Trout was better.

How was Cabrera more valuable? I get that they made the playoffs, but using that as the basis of your argument completely ignores everything else that happened in baseball.

1) 1 game is hardly significant. It is less than 1% of a season

2) It is not known. It is your opinion. My opinion is Cabrera had a better season. Does not make either of us wrong though.

3) Cabrera is more valuable because he was more consistent throughout the season. Trout hit the rookie wall and wavered a bit. Plus, Cabrera batted over .350 in the final 3 innings. Also, since it is value to his own team, Cabrera was a more integral part of the Tigers success than Trout. After all, value is not always the same. My paycheck is more valuable to me than Bill Gates' is to him.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):That has nothing to do with "successful".

What is the objective of MLB teams? I sort of see it like this: Win WS - Make WS - make playoffs - win regular season games - don't die in plane crash

The only thing you can control is what you do in your own games.

If you win 103 games, that's generally regarded as a damn good season.

Do you think the 1993 San Francisco Giants regarded their '93 season as an unmitigated failure? How much control did they have over Atlanta going 97-52 in the 149 games the Braves played against the rest of the NL?

Did they make the playoffs? Do you think they called the '93 "Hugely successful"?

Was it a complete failure? Do you think that they all went "GODDAMMIT, WE SUCK!!!" at the end of the season?

If you gave every team next season the option of (a) a guaranteed 103 wins with no other guarantees (such as playoffs), or (b) take your chances with whatever you can do, which option do you most teams would take?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):I really wish I could remember the thread where JRDX kept going on about the only pitching stats that matter are K/BB/HR. Because that's what I'm getting here except it's with WAR.

Here you go. A link to the post in that thread where jrd_x started proclaiming FIP as the "God Stat" for pitchers.